Jury selection begins today in the long-awaited Rebekah Brooks/Andy Coulson/Less Infamous Other People phone-hacking trial. Good news for fans of British jurisprudence (if not good news for Rebekah Brooks/Andy Coulson/Less Infamous Other People): “it is likely to be one of the longest criminal trials in recent memory,” The Guardianreports, and “has been scheduled to last until next Easter.”

Unfortunately for Britons (and fortunately for Rebekah Brooks/Andy Coulson/Less Infamous Other People), this does not mean three-quarters of a year of deliciously catty wall-to-wall Nancy Grace–style speculative cable-news segments. “The U.K. judicial system, unlike the U.S., bans any comment on active trials until the verdict has been delivered,” according to The Guardian. And the presiding judge has already “issued warnings to the media reminding them not to stray from the strict Contempt of Court Act reporting rules in the U.K., which require fair and accurate reporting of trials as they happen.” To review: trial participants cannot say anything; everyone else cannot say anything inaccurate or grossly unfair—i.e., “anything interesting.”

But wouldn’t it be so easy for journalists—always under such pressure to get the story!—to bend the rules just a little bit? An irresponsible comment here, a legally inadvisable talk-show segment there? Victimless crimes, all! What’s the worst that can happen to a misbehaving reporter? What’s Britain going to do, sue them?